Those cases, which together used $258,000 from Trump’s charity, were among four newly documented expenditures in which Trump may have violated laws against “self-dealing” — which prohibit nonprofit leaders from using charity money to benefit themselves or their businesses.

In one case, from 2007, Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club faced $120,000 in unpaid fines from the town of Palm Beach, Fla., resulting from a dispute over the size of...

In typical Washington Post fashion, they’ve gotten their facts wrong. It is the Clinton Foundation that is set up to make sure the Clintons personally enrich themselves by selling access and trading political favors. The Trump Foundation has no paid board, no management fees, no rent or overhead, and no family members on its payroll.

There was not, and could not be, any intent or motive for the Trump Foundation to make improper payments. All contributions are reported to the IRS, and all Foundation donations are publicly disclosed. Mr. Trump is generous both with his money and with his time. He has provided millions of dollars to fund his Foundation and a multitude of other charitable causes.

The Post’s reporting is peppered with inaccuracies and omissions from a biased reporter who is clearly intent on distracting attention away from the corrupt Clinton Foundation, a vehicle for the Clintons to peddle influence at the expense of the American people. Mr. Trump personally and the Trump Foundation, however, are staying focused on their charitable giving to veterans, the police, children and other deserving recipients.”

Um, okay.

Before I go through the various ways in which this statement elides and misleads, let me make the most obvious point ever: I work for The Washington Post. I have for the past decade. I know David Fahrenthold and the editors who have worked on his stories. So, that's that.

But, even if I didn't work at The Post and I hated Dave, Miller's response to this latest story about Trump's use of the foundation wouldn't pass the smell test.

Miller starts off by dumping on The Post's journalism with zero evidence to back up his claim that we got our "facts wrong." When? Where? Who? He quickly segues into a bit of political sleight of hand by insisting that the real story of this campaign is the Clinton Foundation and that the media is ignoring it. But the media isn't ignoring it. Not even close! A quick Google search of "Washington Post Clinton Foundation" produces a bevy of results,..

...In the second paragraph of his statement, Miller asserts that "there was not, and could not be, any intent or motive for the Trump Foundation to make improper payments." Okay. But that's not what The Post's article alleges. Fahrenthold knows better than to suggest intent or motive; he is simply noting that Trump diverted $258,000 -- money that wasn't his -- given to the foundation to pay for things tied to Trump's businesses. Those are facts. And they simply are not in dispute, not even by Miller....

...As for Miller's claim that Trump has "provided millions of dollars to fund his Foundation and a multitude of other charitable causes," it's important to remember that Fahrenthold has been asking the Trump campaign and the foundation to document some -- any! -- of those personal donations for months now. They have refused, forcing him to call or email each charity one by one to try to track the donations. If Trump is as generous with his own money as Miller says he is, it would be the easiest thing in the world to release a list of the various charities Trump has given to and the dollar amounts associated with those donations. Right? (Note: Last year, Trump released a list of $102 million in charitable donations. But the campaign later acknowledged that not a single dollar of that money came from Trump's own pocket.)............

WHERE DID Donald Trump get the harebrained idea that he will get Mexico to pay for a new border wall? Or his boast that he will make Arab states pay for refugee safe zones in Syria? Perhaps from the success he has had sleazily diverting money other people had donated to charity into paying off his business obligations.

“It’s called OPM. I do that all the time in business. It’s called other people’s money,” Mr. Trump said Tuesday. “There’s nothing like doing things with other people’s money.”

One of the things he did with other people’s money, according to revelations painstakingly uncovered by The Post’s David A. Fahrenthold, was fund his namesake charity, from which donations appeared to come from him. Mr. Trump then used some of that funding to pay off business liabilities. In one instance, he settled a dispute with the town of Palm Beach, Fla., over $120,000 in unpaid fines by promising to donate $100,000 to a veterans group. Instead of donating personal funds, he transferred some money — OPM — from his charitable foundation. Similarly, the GOP nominee used other people’s charitable giving to settle a dispute over a hole-in-one tournament held at the Trump National Golf Club in New York. At the time, his foundation was mostly funded by a big donation from pro-wrestling magnates Vince and Linda McMahon.

These revelations come on top of findings that Mr. Trump and his wife used foundation money to win items at charitable auctions, such as a helmet signed by quarterback Tim Tebow and not one but two paintings of Mr. Trump.

It is likely that this sort of behavior is illegal, because charities are not supposed to engage in “self-dealing” — activities that directly benefit the bottom lines of those running them. But even if Mr. Trump’s approach to “philanthropy” is not technically illegal, it is still slimy and shameless. Sometimes charities associated with wealthy families or businesses tiptoe near ethical lines — but charity experts say Mr. Trump’s activity appears to be brazen.

Though the campaign insisted that The Post’s reporting “is peppered with inaccuracies and omissions,” it pointed to none and has offered no evidence telling a different story.

In fact, Mr. Trump has a secret trove of documents that could help to clarify how much he has really given to charity in recent years, what his business dealings look like and potential conflicts of interest should he be elected president. These documents are his tax returns, which he still refuses to reveal, bucking decades of precedent. Mr. Trump is the least transparent major-party presidential nominee in recent memory — and the one who Americans have the most reason to fear is hiding something.